61

Consideration on American Individualism IV: Buddhist Contribution to American Society

Yoshimi Nakamura

Introduction

This paper is the fourth and final installment of the series “Consideration

on American Individualism” in The Bulletin of Keiwa College. In part I

(Nakamura, 2012), I discussed how early European settlers generated

American individualism in the New World, combining their European

traditions with American mythology. Then in part II (Nakamura, 2013),

I examined how this individualism has been transformed in the course of

history. Having endured some major social changes, American individualism

has been, in some senses, eroded.

I turned to Buddhism in part III (Nakamura, 2014) to analyze the nature of

American individualism. In the Buddhist perspective, one’s false view of self is

responsible for one’s suffering. A Buddhist diagnosis suggests that Americans’

strong focus on self has had negative effects on both individuals and society.

This paper, part IV, considers what links Buddhism and American values. I

mainly focus my attention on the ideals of love and compassion that Buddhism

and Christianity share. Finally, I examine possible roles of Buddhism in

American society.

As in part III, I refer to the Buddha as Shakyamuni, meaning “the Sage of

the Shakya,” Shakya being his clan name. He was born around 480 BCE in

India, where he passed away at the age of eighty. Iwanami Bukkyo Jiten (Iwanami

Buddhist Dictionary) (1989) is referred to when Buddhist terms in Sanskrit and

Japanese are used and cited in this paper.

1. The Ideal of Compassion in Mahayana Buddhism

Shakyamuni presents a view called the doctrine of the anatman (無我 muga),

which is translated as “no-self ” or “no-soul.” As was discussed in part III (p.46),

Buddhism teaches that there is no such thing as a permanent self. It holds that

a so-called “person” consists of panca-skandha (五蘊 goun), five ever changing

elements that come together for a limited period of time.

62

This concept of no-self seems to place Buddhism at a great distance from

Western philosophy, which emphasizes a sharp distinction of self from others.

However, it must not be forgotten that Buddhism shares many common

concerns with Western philosophy. Both reflect upon the nature of the world

and human identity, and both express the desire for salvation. They are

intimately tied up with the ideals of love and compassion.

The Buddhist virtue of compassion, translated as jihi (慈悲) in Japanese,

consists of two concepts: maitri (慈 j i), meaning “bringing others benefit and

joy,” and karuna (悲hi), meaning “helping others to relieve suffering.”

To discuss the Buddhist concept of compassion further, it is essential

to relate the rise of the Mahayana (大乗 daijō) school of Buddhism in India.

After the death of Shakyamuni, Buddhism evolved from its original form

into Theravada (上座部 jōzabu), meaning “the Teaching of the Elders,” and

later, Mahayana, meaning “Great Vehicle.” Mahayana took shape about the

beginning of the Christian era, that is, some time between the first century

BCE and the first century AD (Conze, 1980, p.41).

It is important to note that the Mahayana movement arose as a reaction

against the Theravada orthodoxy, which had considered prajna (般若 hannya),

or “wisdom,” as the highest virtue. The Theravada school, after the death

of Shakyamuni, increasingly removed themselves from all secular authority.

They placed emphasis on asceticism in the seclusion of monastic life. Their

ideal was to be an arhat (応供 ōgu), which means, according to Conze (p.44), “a

person who has non-attachment, in whom all craving is extinct and who will

no more be reborn in this world.” The arhat path, however, seemed far beyond

the grasp of ordinary people.

In a sense, the Theravada followers entirely neglected the original aim

of Shakyamuni’s teaching: the salvation of all people. Thus, the Mahayana

movement sprang up as an attempt to reform the elitist and exclusive monastic

path of Theravada Buddhism.

Mahayama Buddhism presents a completely new interpretation of the

concept and nature of the Buddha in the doctrine of dharmakaya (法身 hōshin),

dharma being “the law,” and kaya, “body.” In his book Living Buddha, Living

Christ, Nhat Hanh (1995, p.50) clarifies the concept of dharmakaya. When

Shakyamuni was about to pass away, he reassured his disciples, who were

upset that Shakyamuni would no longer be with them, by saying:

63

My physical body will no longer be here, but my teaching body,

dharmakaya, will always be with you. Take refuge in the Dharma, the

teaching, to make an island for yourselves.

This message implies that there are two bodies of the Buddha. One is

the body of the historical Buddha, the Buddha as Shakyamuni himself. The

Theravada school emphasized Shakyamuni’s literal teaching. Meanwhile,

the other body is dharmakaya, which was later developed in the Mahayana

teaching. Nhat Hanh (p.35) explains that this is the Buddha of the ultimate

reality, the one who transcends all ideas and notions and is available to any

person at any time.

This doctrine positions Shakyamuni as not only the historical Buddha

but also one of many “buddhas.” It asserts that the fundamental dharma, or

Buddha-nature, is not something external or transcendental, but is present

within all people and within reality beyond time and space. The belief in the

Buddha for the Mahayana followers connotes the belief in the Buddha of this

ultimate reality, rather than the teaching of the historical Buddha.

The Mahayana Buddhists insist that it is necessary to work not only for

one’s own salvation but also for the universal salvation of all people, all of

whom inherently possess the nature of Buddha. In Mahayana Buddhism, the

arhat ideal of prajna was integrated with the ideal of bodhisattva (菩薩 bosatsu),

bodhi (悟りsatori) being “enlightenment,” and sattva (衆生 shujō), “being.” Conze

(p.44) explains that the bodhisattva, or “enlightened-being,” is “a person who

wishes to save all his fellow-beings and who helps to become omniscient

Buddha.” In Conze’s (1975, p.128) interpretation, “compassion” now came to

be valued as highly as “wisdom.”

The philosophical background for Mahayana Buddhism lies in the doctrine

of sunyata (空 kū), or “emptiness.” As was described in part III (pp.46-48),

the important part of this doctrine is that everything has the equal reality of

“emptiness.” Mahayana Buddhists are aware that even the Buddhist concepts,

such as nirvana (涅槃 nehan) and samsara (輪廻 rinne), are named or used simply

because they are necessary to explain matters to bring people to understanding.

If these concepts are viewed as sacred cows or objectively and independently

real, they hold that one would eventually have duhkha (苦 ku), which originates

64

from falsely perceiving the truth of “emptiness.”

It must be noted that the doctrine of emptiness is most important to the

path of bodhisattva. Realization of the absoluteness of infinite relativity can

be identified with the notion of dharmakaya, or the nature of Buddha. Conze

(1975, p.145) explains:

If Nirvana and the world are identical, if everything is the same as

everything else, then there is no difference between the enlightened and

the unenlightened, between the wise and the fools, between purity and

impurity, and everyone must have the same opportunity for salvation.

If the Buddha’s compassion is unlimited, he must save also the fools.

If the Buddha-nature is equally present in all, then all are equally near

Buddhahood.

The path of bodhisattva allows diversity and multiplicity within Mahayana

Buddhism, because the bodhisattva is committed to upaya (方便 hōben), or

“skillful means” in religious practice. What upaya indicates, Conze (1980, p.48)

explains, is the ability to bring out one’s spiritual potentialities according to his

or her capacity for comprehension. The central idea of the bodhisattva path is

that all beings are unique and each has a different path to salvation.

Such flexibility allowed Mahayana Buddhism to spread outside of India.

Especially in such Asian countries as China, Korea, Japan, Tibet, Nepal,

Mongolia, and Vietnam, Mahayana Buddhism has had great popular appeal.

Goodstein (1994) explains that each country developed its own style of

Mahayana Buddhism according to the context of each indigenous culture.

2. What Links Buddhism and American thought

It is often said that Christianity is the teaching of love. Jesus gave His

disciples the commandment to love God with all their being and to love their

neighbors as themselves. According to the Bible:

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant

or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;

it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all

things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things (Corinthians

65

13:4, New Revised Standard Version).

Nhat Hanh (1995, p.111) regards the Christian concept of love as very close

to the Buddhist concept of compassion. Both Christianity and Buddhism,

perhaps through the power of love and compassion, have grown bigger in their

significance, influence and the number of followers in the world, transcending

narrow concepts of race, class, and nationality.

In the Buddhist view, true love is possible when there is the understanding

that one is not separate from other beings or the environment. To be is to be

related, and everything is a set of relationships reaching out to other things. To

be human means to belong to the community of humankind, and to seek the

truth means to take responsibility for the wholeness of life. While respecting

human diversity, Buddhism focuses on our fundamental connection to fellow

human beings. The Fourteenth Dalai Lama remarks in the book The Path of

Compassion (1988, pp.3-4):

After all, all human beings are made of flesh, bones, and blood, wanting

happiness, and not wanting suffering. We all have an equal right to be

happy, and it is important to realize our sameness as human beings. We all

belong to one human family. We quarrel with each other, but that is due

to secondary reasons, and all of this arguing, cheating, and suppressing

each other is of no use.

This awareness contributes to the message of Jesus that we should “love

our enemy.” When we understand that our own lives and the life of the

universe are one, we no longer differentiate subject and object. The suffering of

others is our own suffering and the happiness of others is our own happiness.

In his book The Miracle of Mindfulness, Nhat Hanh (1975, p.48) says,

“Perhaps one can say that we are only alive when we live the life of the world.”

The fruit of this awareness, he states, is freedom from afflicted feelings. It

makes one more tolerant and forgiving toward enemies. Nhat Hanh would say

toward an enemy:

You, my brother or sister, have wronged me in the past. I now understand

that you were suffering and did not see things clearly. I no longer feel

66

anger toward you (1995, p.86).

The Fourteenth Dalai Lama, in his book Kindness, Clarity, and Insight (1984,

p.36), states that even enemies are teachers of inner strength. He explains that

one can learn real tolerance and patience from an enemy whereas the strength

of one’s tolerance cannot be tested by one’s friends, parents, or a religious

teacher. Having an enemy, he says, may also make one come closer to reality,

peeling off pretensions. Thus, Buddhism views love and compassion as our

best asset to respond to reality, because all of us share these powers. If one’s

action is motivated by love and compassion, it sets one free.

The concept of anatman, or “no-self,” is indeed important in understanding

Buddhist thought, but Nhat Hanh (1995, p.55) points out that there is

something more important than no-self: freedom from the notions of both

self and non-self. He points out the danger of being caught by mere words or

concepts. “For a Buddhist,” he says, “to be attached to any doctrine, even a

Buddhist one, is to betray the Buddha.”

What is important is our insight into the true nature of reality and our

way of responding to reality. Any Buddhist concept is viewed as merely

“an instrument to help us penetrate deeply into reality and obtain liberating

insight” (Nhat Hanh, 1996, p.51). Buddhism asserts that the ultimate

dimension has nothing to do with concepts. In this light, Buddhism may be

viewed as pragmatic thought designed to free individuals from any emotional

and intellectual attachment.

As was described in part I (pp.1-3) and part II (pp.36-38), America is

a country of immigrants. From the outset, it was composed of people

who freed themselves from old European societies. Although Americans

inherited Western civilization to a large degree, they have been mistrustful of

institutional authority and philosophical intellectualism that would repress

individuals. The American ethos has been centered in pragmatism, or self-

directed actions through which individuals are inspired to renew their own

lives day by day.

Buddhism views the present as being made of the past and, at the same

time, creating the future. Every moment depends on all preceding moments,

and every moment is full of a future that is always new. The point of life,

therefore, is to widen one’s capacity to respond to reality without being bound

67

by ego and convention. In doing so, one can make each moment more special

and its own. Jacobson (1986, p.43) states that one’s perception becomes

centered in creativity to the extent that one loses ego-centeredness.

Buddhism has sought to create a moment of awareness as rich as possible

in the flow of reality. It is a moment of inexpressible peace in the oneness of

the world. In this context, an awareness of impermanence is considered as

positive, because without impermanence one cannot make creative moments.

Each moment is not immortal, and for that very reason all the more its own

and precious. This is why Buddhism emphasizes faith in one’s daily practice

rather than faith in an idea.

American thought shares with Buddhism its emphasis on what individuals

do pragmatically. The American way of life is full of mobility and change.

Jacobson (p.15, p.130) suggests that American empiricism rejects permanence

and accepts the transitory nature of life. Thus, Buddhist and American thought

come together in respect to their emphasis on pragmatic approaches to matters.

A difference, however, lies in Americans’ pervasive consciousness that

an enduring transcendent self is more substantial than the present moment.

Buddhism can make a significant contribution to sustaining the virtues of

American individualism if it helps Americans to shift their emphasis from

the “preservation of self ” to the “creation of rich selfless moments.” The

former leads one to anxieties and frustration, while the latter brings one more

openness and flexibility. As long as one is engaged in creating rich moments,

one has dignity. Nhat Hanh (1995, p.179) says:

Unless we channel our energies toward being aware of what is going on

in the present moment, we might not discover the peace and happiness

that is available right now. The well is within us. If we dig deeply in the

present moment, the water will spring forth.

3. A Middle Way between Two Fallacies

As introduced in part II (p.32), Alexis De Tocqueville, a French traveler

in the nineteenth century, observed that Americans had an essential purity

of faith in their participation for the common good at the expense of private

interests. Individualism has constantly inspired Americans to be virtuous

citizens who voluntarily contribute to the public good.

68

On the other hand, as was also discussed in part II (pp.34-36, pp.38-40),

the rapid social changes brought by industrial capitalism have been depriving

Americans of their communalism. The increasing complexity of society, along

with the exclusive emphasis on the value of the individual, has made it more

difficult for Americans today to relate themselves to society.

Finally, I consider how Buddhist perspectives, combined with American

values, can evolve the virtues of American individualism. The key is how

Buddhism can help American individuals reconnect themselves to society,

transforming their self-interested motives into public commitment.

Buddhism understands the nature of reality as social process and sees

people as social creatures in a special sense. As was exemplified in part

III (pp.47-48), the Shakyamuni’s teaching of pratitya-samutpada (縁起 engi ),

or “dependent origination,” suggests that all individuals are viewed as

inextricably linked to all parts of the world. The corollary is that the reality of

one’s being is defined within one’s total social environment.

In his book The Social Face of Buddhism, Ken Jones (1989) discusses two

extremes of a person’s actions in society. One is what he calls the “social

fallacy.” This is the belief, Jones (p.119) states, that human well-being is to be

achieved primarily and solely through social development. The social fallacy

has typically appeared in socialist form. Western civilization on the whole

has been somewhat obsessed with the social fallacy, because it has placed its

emphasis on social and political revolution.

The other extreme is the “quietist fallacy,” which, according to Jones

(p.99, p.123), is the belief that salvation is separated from social phenomena.

Separating spirituality from active social concern, one is in danger of sinking

into other-worldly quietism. The quietist fallacy has typically been seen in an

Eastern tradition that focuses on meditative practice. In meditative bliss, one

can possibly become irresponsible in regard to one’s social connections and

duties.

Jones (p.209) points out that Buddhism has been often mistakenly identified

with the quietist fallacy. It is in fact true that traditional Buddhism has avoided

institutional activism and political leadership. One reason for its passivity has

lain in its status as a guest religion in society. Buddhism in East Asia remained

a guest religion, in contrast to its traditional religions with deep popular roots,

such as Taoism and Shintoism. Its acceptance and survival has depended to a

69

large degree on its political conformity. Buddhists, in this situation, have often

been obliged to sacrifice their ideals for their survival. In this sense, Buddhists

in the West today are excited about the potential that Buddhism has in the

West, where religious freedom is more guaranteed.

The essential teaching of Buddhism lies between the social and quietist

fallacies. Buddhism in this sense seeks a middle way between them.

Shakyamuni’s foremost concern was with the alleviation of human suffering.

As was discussed earlier, the path of bodhisattva in Mahayana Buddhism aims

at the universal salvation of all people, using upaya. The wisdom of Buddhism

lies in the awareness of the interrelatedness of all individuals and things, which

are all equally “empty.” What should be avoided in Buddhism is delusive and

dualistic separation, particularly of self from others.

Buddhism speaks to society about the danger of dogmatism and fanaticism

in one of the most basic principles: the denial of the notion of absoluteness.

Buddhism states that a common mistake is committed by elevating a relative

into an absolute truth. If one looks at one’s self as an absolute truth, it often

leads to conflicts and fightings with others.

Tiradhammo (1989, p.35) asserts that Buddhism should not add another

ideology to an “ideology-afflicted world.” Where Buddhism can make

a contribution is to point out the limits of reforms in social systems or

institutions. Social reform is truly necessary, but unless individuals in large

numbers are personally changed, the reform does not bring substantial change

in society. If one is driven by the delusive dualism of self and other, one may

not be remedying but contributing to a problem.

Human liberation, Jones (p.125) asserts, is not just an extension of the field

of social liberation. He further explains:

Buddhism implies that unless there is some significant personal and

individual change in the ways we feel and think about ourselves and about

others we shall try to go on evolving societies which express and reinforce

the futile struggle of each of us to escape from our root fear into varieties

of acquisitive and aggressive belongingness identity (p.123).

Buddhism maintains that society can be affected to the extent that

individuals change. Social action and social change must be based on personal

70

and individual transformation. Social culture is significant to the effect that its

climate helps individuals become either more “deluded” or more “enlightened.”

The more society is bound by a culture of delusive separation, the more

individuals are required to have personal transformation.

With the power of karman (業 gō), which I mentioned in part III (p.49),

socio-historical conditions are inherited by each new generation. A good action

by each individual produces good effects and a bad action by each individual

produces bad effects. These effects become ground for further karman, whether

in a good way or bad way. The character of society slowly changes through

interactions and accumulation of these effects.

Conclusion

The most practical and essential message in Buddhism is that one should

start with making peace with oneself. In the Buddhist perspective, the violence

and inequality that exists in the world is viewed as simply an extension of

the violence that individuals commit towards themselves and towards those

immediately surrounding them.

Buddhism does not make a distinction between the social level and the

individual level. If one is hurting one’s parents, family, and friends, one has

already a war going on inside oneself. When one has harmony with oneself,

one becomes capable of making peace with others. This is the Buddhist

perspective on where real social reform should start. Nhat Hanh (1988, p.37)

points out what peacemakers should be like:

I think that if peacemakers are really peaceful and happy, they will radiate

peace themselves. To educate people for peace we have two alternatives:

to use words, or to be peaceful ourselves and to speak with our lives

and bodies. I think the second way is more effective. One person is very

important. I have seen such persons, and because of their way of living,

they really influence others.

The genuine wisdom of Buddhism is manifested in compassionate action

in the most basic parts of one’s life. This perspective can contribute to evolving

the virtues of American individualism. It alleviates a distinctive problem that

Americans have traditionally suffered: conflicts and tensions between the

71

individuals and society. It gives a new alternative perspective for social change

in America.

Buddhism focuses on enlightenment of the individual “on a high level of

spiritual consciousness” (Jones, p.198) apart from one’s social structure. If

one sees reality clearly without getting stuck in concepts and notions, one can

be peaceful right here, right now. When more Americans recognize that one’s

true liberation lies not beyond the “frontier,” but in the present moment inside

themselves, the virtues of American individualism will be maximized without

harming the dignity of the individual and without destroying the ideals of

democratic society.

Note:

I am thankful to the entire faculty and staff of the Liberal Studies Program (LSP)

at Georgetown University for making my graduate study genuinely worthwhile and

enlightening. No other program would have given me a deeper understanding of how to live

a positive life. It has invaluably enriched and enhanced my career experience since I returned

to Japan in 1998. Visiting Georgetown in the spring of 2014, I had a chance to talk with

Dr. Michael Collins, Dean of the LSP during my enrollment, Dr. Francisca Cho, my long-

standing mentor, and Anne Ridder, Assistant Dean of the LSP. It was a great pleasure to

learn that the LSP at Georgetown is still going strong, contributing to education that sustains

and empowers human freedom. I also appreciate Mr. Mark Frank, former associate professor

at Keiwa College, for his consistent support and insightful suggestions for years.

References

Conze, E. (1975). Buddhism: Its Essence and Development. New York: Harper & Row

Publishers.

Conze, E. (1980). A Short History of Buddhism. Oxford: Oneworld Publications.

Goodstein, L. (1994, May 30). Drawn to the Light of Buddhism. The Washington Post, p.1 (B).

Gyatso, Tenzin, The XIVth Dalai Lama. (1984). Kindness, Clarity, and Insight. New York:

Snow Lion Publications.

Gyatso, Tenzin, The XIVth Dalai Lama. (1988). Hope for the Future, in The Path of Compassion: Writings on Socially Engaged Buddhism, F. Eppsteiner (Ed.). Berkeley:

Parallax Press, 3-8.

Jacobson, N. P. (1986). Understanding Buddhism. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University

Press.

Jones, K. (1989). The Social Face of Buddhism. London: Wisdom Publication.

Nakamura, H. et al. (Eds.). (1989). Iwamami Bukkyo Jiten (Iwanami Buddhist Dictionary). Tokyo:

Iwanami Shoten.

72

Nakamura, Y. (2012). Consideration on American Individualism I: Its Formation in the

Early Period, in Bulletin of Keiwa College, 21. Shibata: Keiwa College, 1-7.

Nakamura, Y. (2013). Consideration on American Individualism II: Individualism

Transformed and its Subsequent Impasse, in Bulletin of Keiwa College, 22. Shibata:

Keiwa College, 31-41.

Nakamura, Y. (2014). Consideration on American Individualism III: Buddhist Diagnosis of

American Individualism, in Bulletin of Keiwa College, 23. Shibata: Keiwa College, 45-53.

Nhat Hanh, T. (1975). The Miracle of Mindfulness: A Manual on Meditation. Boston: Beacon

Press.

Nhat Hanh, T. (1988). Please Call Me by My True Names, in The Path of Compassion: Writings on Socially Engaged Buddhism. F. Eppsteiner (Ed.). Berkeley: Parallax Press, 31-

39.

Nhat Hanh, T. (1995). Living Buddha, Living Christ. New York: Riverhead Books.

Nhat Hanh, T. (1996). Cultivating the Mind of Love. Berkeley: Parallax Press.

Tiradhammo, A. (1989) Forward, in K. Jones, The Social Face of Buddhism. London: Wisdom

Publication.

Corrections

Let me hereby make corrections of the words I misspelled in the previous paper, “Consideration on

American Individualism II: Individualism Transformed and its Subsequent Impasse” in Bulletin of Keiwa

College, 22, 2013.

p.36, l.1-2: “its vitality was lessoned” should be corrected to “its vitality was lessened.”

p.37, l.16: “not by utilities and harmonies” should be corrected to “not by unities and harmonies.”

p.37, l.26: “native Americans” should be corrected to “Native Americans.”

p.41, l.1 and 3: “Bellah, N. B.” should be corrected to “Bellah, R. N.”